Scientific Vs. Utopian Socialism

One of the biggest distinctions between those on the left is the question as to how change is to come about. Those even remotely familiar with the basics of Marxism understand it as a revolutionary struggle on behalf of the working class against the capitalist system and the ownership class. However, the Left in general is a broad array of a number of different perspectives on the question of revolutionary class-struggle or participation in the bourgeois political process. The former refers to the revolutionary theory, while the latter adopts an evolutionary theory.

Revolution, in Marxist-Leninist terminology, is the only necessary means for achieving a socialist society, and eventually a communist one. Though revolution is by its definition a violent activity, it comes as a necessary condition to supersede the class system. That revolution (over evolution) becomes necessity comes from the recognition that class-unity is a utopian ideal that will never achieve true liberation for the working classes. Since the bourgeoisie has everything to lose, it stands to reason that it will never peacefully hand over the means of production to the workers. Furthermore, the possibility of a true representative of the proletariat would ever find success in the restricted political process of bourgeois society. Thus, revolution is key to the success of the proletariat if it is ever to fulfill its social, political, and economic capacity as the dominant class.

Conversely, those social-democrats or liberal socialists view revolution as an unnecessary or extreme measure for which they distance themselves from. Though their intentions may be sincere, their political positions put them at odds with the reality of the capitalist system and its consequence of subjugating the working peoples. The evolutionary theory of socialism holds that the efforts of the proletariat to physically overtake the bourgeoisie are not necessary in the modern era of "civilized" politics in order for substantial change to occur. These individuals, parties, or groups whom espouse this ideal typically see the future of socialism coming in the form of change at the ballot box, rather than the barrel of a rifle.

What possible explanation can be offered for this diversion in means which share a relatively similar end (in the abstract)? The difference in means can best be explained by the lack of class consciousness on behalf of the evolutionary socialist. Their analysis of the political-economic arrangements of capitalism fail to realize the undermining element of bourgeois society: that the state itself is a means of class oppression that will never transition to socialism willingly. The naivety of the evolutionary theory of socialism. This position requires faith in the standing political process to carry the capacity of bringing about serious economic-social-political changes that are inherently opposed to within the confines of the super-structure of capitalism. Thus, it is a contradictory and reactionary position that fails to seriously question its own analysis in terms of the means of achieving socialism.

The lack of class-consciousness is a dangerous mistake on behalf of the social-democrats. It weakens the position of the proletariat by replacing class-consciousness with class-unity. The façade of progressive participatory politics can never achieve the true liberation that comes with the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in Marxism-Leninism.

The failures of social-democracy are only more intensified when you compare them to the scientific socialism offered by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. The process for achieving socialism must come through the close, detailed, and comprehensive analysis of the conditions prevalent facing the proletariat today. This analysis is what separates Marxism-Leninism, as a type of science, compared to the utopian ideals of egalitarian socialists and democrats. Though a people's democracy is the ultimate goal, it requires alternative methods to the standing political process - despite the attractive position of peaceful democratic transition.

Scientific socialism incorporates the dialectical materialist outlook and applies it to the social conditions as they exist today. This is the only means for assessing a true and objective perspective on how revolutionary struggle is to be carried out. The term scientific socialism depends on this incorporation because it sees revolution as requiring a methodology and approach similar to that of the observation of the outside world, just as in the natural sciences. Thus, the way in which the biologist observes the mating practices of various species in nature, so too does the Marxist-Leninist in assessing the social, political, and economic needs of the proletariat according to the material conditions at the time. This is what also separates Marxism-Leninism from the other varieties of utopian socialism. This other variety of utopian or idealistic socialists may subscribe to the notion that revolution is necessary, but fail to take into consideration the other essential aspects of the class system that make revolutions possible.

The scientific approach to socialism is distinct from these idealistic approaches in their meticulous study that sees preceding conditions that make revolution necessity, not merely the will of a group or even a mass or people. Revolution needs to be looked at less as a push for change because you want it, but rather, because of the necessary pressure created through the inherent conditions of capitalism. As Mao Tse-Tung once said, "revolution is not a tea party." This holds true in every regard. Revolutions that neglect the scientific methodology and approach of serious economic and political inquiry are destined to fail to accomplish the objectives of true liberation of the working peoples. They can politically succeed, but they will never accomplish the objectives of a communist society by forsaking the essential conditions that make communism a reality.